The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim for development charges must be supported by sufficient documentary proof, and failure to provide such evidence may result in the dismissal of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed in O.S No.3304/2005 on the file of II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru dated 24.07.2010.

2. The brief facts of the case is that; the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.48,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till its realization. The other relief also sought are that; to restrain the defendants or their agents or any persons claiming through them from alienating the suit schedule property in any way without complying the conditions mentioned in the absolute sale deed dated 29.09.1993 regarding payment of development charges by granting permanent injunction and also alternatively, has sought for a direction to the defendants to re-convey the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by accepting the sale consideration amount of Rs.42,000/- together with Bank rate of interest from the date of sale till the date of filing of suit by granting mandatory injunction and such other relief as the Court deems fit.

3. The claim of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is the site bearing No.11 formed in Sy. No.23 of Durga Nagar Layout, Mallasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring east to west: 30 feet and north to south: 40 feet with the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The contention of the plaintiff is that he formed residential sites to the extent of 6 acres in Sy. No.23 of the said village and he proceeds to narrate the dimensions of those properties in different measurements. After formation of layout, he sold the sites to several purchasers. These two defendants are jointly purchased the schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 29.09.1993 and in terms of the sale transaction, it includes the payment of development charges. Providing civic amenities to the said layout is a subsequent event. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were under a legal and contractual obligation to pay such development charges amounting to Rs.48,000/-. The defendants did not pay the said amount and hence, he filed the suit against the defendants.

4. The defendants, after receipt of the suit notice, appeared through the counsel and filed objection contending that execution of the sale deed touching suit property in their favour as well as consideration amount etc., are all admitted. So also, the condition put in the sale deed touching the payment of developmental charges. It is the specific case of the defendants that such a condition is void and unenforceable. Alternatively, they pleaded that they have paid for a sum of Rs.14,670/- towards the development charges to the concerned local planning authority and denied all other averments made in the plaint. He further contended that no civic amenities are provided by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is only taking the advantage of the clause mentioned in the sale deed filed the suit. The local planning authority determined the developmental charges at Rs.14,670/- and the same has been paid by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for claim amount.

5. The Court below having considered the pleadings of the plaintiff and also the defendants, has framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant agreed to purchase site subject to the payment of development charges?

2. Whether plaintiff has developed site spending his amount?

3. Whether defendant proves that he has paid development charges to the concerned authority?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit amount by defendant?

5. If so what is amount? If not why?

6. What Judgment or decree?

6. The Court below recorded the evidence of the plaintiff. In support of his claim, examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2, who is the Commissioner and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to 22. On the other hand, defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.1 and got marke